Our city has it on the office buildings and now has put on the entrance's into the yard were we park!!! 30 06 signes !!! Is it legalese or not???? Don't won't to get fired but won't the right to have in my car!!!! Need the laws on it to protect my job if what their doing is wrong!!!

Scott Farkus wrote:I sure hope this is on the agenda this session. It burns my hide every time I walk past Austin City Hall and see the 30.06 and the metal detectors at both entrances. They should not be allowed to do this.

Those signs are enforceable only when the council is in session (the meeting of a governmental body clause). AFAIK, that is the only time they actually use the metal detectors. Any other time, the detectors are not in operation, and you can carry past the signs. I did just that last time I was at City Hall for an art exhibit. Yes, the signs were still there (off to the side), but no enforcement was taking place, and the metal detectors were off to the side as well.

Walked by on my lunch hour earlier this week. Nothing was going on, Council not in session, and the 30.06 signs were up and metal detectors in use.

This is garbage. It needs to stop. Someone please tell me this is being addressed in the next session.

Yep it's bull!!!! If they don't meet the criteria to post the signs if their is one ?? I wish that they could be informed of that!!! And made to take it down ! Because it's very wierd that people say that some of the signes or not leagley posted an u can walk past theme!!! But we where taught if it was a proper signe it was a no go!!! Are was I not a very good student lol.

JT69 wrote:Yep it's bull!!!! If they don't meet the criteria to post the signs if their is one ?? I wish that they could be informed of that!!! And made to take it down ! Because it's very wierd that people say that some of the signes or not leagley posted an u can walk past theme!!! But we where taught if it was a proper signe it was a no go!!! Are was I not a very good student lol.

I'm afraid this issue is never going to be resolved until we get together, create a legal fund, and go after the cities in state court. If we could win an injunction against the city of Austin, most other cities might just fall in line. Until then, we may just have to remember the old saying "You can't fight City Hall". None of us can fight alone, unless we win the Lottery.

JT69 wrote:Yep it's bull!!!! If they don't meet the criteria to post the signs if their is one ?? I wish that they could be informed of that!!! And made to take it down ! Because it's very wierd that people say that some of the signes or not leagley posted an u can walk past theme!!! But we where taught if it was a proper signe it was a no go!!! Are was I not a very good student lol.

I'm afraid this issue is never going to be resolved until we get together, create a legal fund, and go after the cities in state court. If we could win an injunction against the city of Austin, most other cities might just fall in line. Until then, we may just have to remember the old saying "You can't fight City Hall". None of us can fight alone, unless we win the Lottery.

I dunno, turns out you can fight city hall .....several of us have been successful in "fighting city hall" after sending what I call the "form letter" on preemption" The non-compliant signs at the Burnet County Tax office came down, and several non-compliant signs posted at city halls and other city or County facilities have been removed and ordinances repealed.

Now I do not advise private businesses on signs, but I'll send a letter or e-mail to get cities/counties to obey the State law ... I mean I have to obey the law, they do too.

SewTexas wrote:Yes, but I would not recommend JT69 do this in person at his City Hall. He's a City Employee.

Right, I always sent "A concerned taxpayer" letter anonymously to potentially save the city money on such things ... don't get fired over it; however, you can make a dated copy prior to mailing if you ever need evidence (you really can't send CMrrr to prove receipt, but by sending to all councilmen, mayor, city manager, city attorney, city secretary etc etc etc it might be assumed someone received it) that the city was put on notice; say for a civil rights lawsuit if someday you get arrested for something which is not illegal. By sending it to everyone; and listing on it that it was sent to everyone, so that each one knows that every other one got it ... the City Manager or a city councilman can bring it up to another councilman "Hey, you got that letter about ... we better ask the city attorney on that, it was sent to him too ...." Or the City Attorney can bring it up as a way to earn some hourly research money and give them a decision ... and then the city council will probably need to vote to follow the city attorney's recommendation which should be to abide by State Law ...

(That's kinda how it happened before, they vote to follow the State Law / do what they should have done and remove the sign, but now they'll all get a warm fuzzy feeling for doing the right thing and potentially saving the city money and abiding by State Law and the City Attorney gets to feel important instead of just sending out Tax collection notices and doing the day to day boring city work. ... )

I think the building and common areas could be posted, but the data center itself is a complicated question. The law making government buildings not valid only would apply to the part leased by the state. The rest of the building would be private property and up to the owner.

The data center itself would depend on who is actually leasing the property. If the state is leasing the property, the sign is invalid and could be ignored. If a company is leasing the property and running the data center for the state, it is still private property and could be posted. The law says property owned or leased by the state. It does not mention leased for the benefit of the state.

Now, I have to admit that it gets into a very gray area on the data center when it is operated solely for the state. It could be argued that it was effectively being sublet to the state. That would have to be decided by a court though.

As an aside, there is an interesting legal question on the common area. The wording of the law implies it could be posted since it is not being leased by the state. But a lawyer could argue that it is effectively making the state leased property posted by stopping you from getting there with your weapon. I could see that being ruled invalid by the right court also.

For the Austin Data Center -- is there any effect from "critical infrastructure" rules (30.05 I believe)?

This entire building is known as the Austin Data Center and is dedicated to 'state functions' (not some portion), but I don't know who holds the lease/ownership and agree it would likely have to be adjudicated to be resolved -- or at least an AG letter of determination.

I don't see how it meets any of the definitions of critical infrastructure, which are pretty specific. But even if it did, that really only applies in conjunction with you already having committed a crime under 30.05, which does not apply if you are a CHL and the denial is for your carrying your firearm. The only possible one to confuse things might be the telecommunications clause, but that is actually the central telephone system office. They still call them central switching offices from back when the old dial-up systems used mechanical switches and operators.

Rusty Wrenches wrote:City of Pearland public works building. Don't think they can put one up and the letters are way too small.

Dunno about "public works "

30.05 ...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm(7) "Critical infrastructure facility" means one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders:

(I) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas; or

(J) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station....

IF "Public Works" is a critical Infrastructure Facility ... under 30.05, and it's a defense under 30.05 trespassing for chls if the basis was them carrying ...

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

perhaps they just wanted to provide the defense to prosecution to 30.05 for CHLs only, which would be easier to show there with a non-enforceable 30.06 sign ? but without the sign, it'd be trespassing under 30.05 without the defense? ... ============================================================

Oddly, it seems that's a way to "benefit" CHLs by placing an unenforceable 30.06 sign to provide a defense under 30.06

Now I'm !!! What can they legally post and inforce ??? The city I work for has the proper 30.06 posted at all entrance's to property, parking lot buildings,,, the works !! Publick works yard , water plant ,& waist water plants,,,plus City Hall an all other buildings!! And the 30.05 signe does are does not apply to us if they changed theme???

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.==============================================It's almost a logic problemIfa city/government places a 30.06 sign on a gov't owned property not prohibited for CHLs under chapter 46.03 or 46.035, thenthey are fulfilling the conditions concerning CHLs of:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Thereby providing the stated defense.

However if they do not post a 30.06 sign AND the property is a critical infrastructure, then CHLs are not supposed to carry there since weapons are prohibited there.... and with no 30.06 sign, you have not been provided the stated defense to the 30.05 offense concerning critical infrastructure and those other things listed in 30.05 on government property.

So, IF a city has a 30.06 sign up at a park or library or place which is not a 30.05 place nor chapter 46 place, I might advise them to remove the sign, BUT IF the city puts up a 30.06 sign at a 30.05 place (say a city owned water treatment plant or 30.05 listed place) then by placing the 30.06 sign, they have provided a defense to the 30.05 charge if for some reason I did not disarm prior to entering so I would not go running to tell the city to remove the unenforceable sign which does nothing but provide a defense to me under 30.05 AND is unenforceable under 30.06 on city owned property, as long as it is not prohibited locations under Chapter 46.

Haun Elementary School in Plano has what appears to be an otherwise legal 30.06 sign posted at the entrance to their main parking lot. Does this mean I'm supposed to leave my gun in my car when I walk to the door to pick my kids up? I thought the law allowed CHL's to carry as long as as we didn't enter the "premises" (building or a portion of a building) or as long as there wasn't a school activity going on. Or is this an improper posting? Opinions?

AJHutton wrote:Haun Elementary School in Plano has what appears to be an otherwise legal 30.06 sign posted at the entrance to their main parking lot. Does this mean I'm supposed to leave my gun in my car when I walk to the door to pick my kids up? I thought the law allowed CHL's to carry as long as as we didn't enter the "premises" (building or a portion of a building) or as long as there wasn't a school activity going on. Or is this an improper posting? Opinions?

That's also an issue related to government entities posting 30.06 signs where none should be, which I hope can be cleared up in 2013 legislative session if need be, because:LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE and Texas EDUCATION CODE

We've had a discussion on this forum about whether an "Independent School District" with elected officials and ability to tax, is a governmental entity as a subdivision of the State, subject to State Preemption law (In my humble layman's opinion it is, and in some laws, I believe if you search ISD and government code here you'll find the thread ... I'll edit and give a link if I locate it)

A position exists that, IIRC, as an "Independent" entity. it isn't a government agency, though they can take and auction your home for failure to pay your taxes.

Sop, to answer that, In My Layman's opinion, the 30.06 sign posted on government property there, is not enforceable, though you might be arrested by ignorant (i mean uninformed of the relevant laws) ISD officers /// concealed is concealed

So, in my mind, my layman's opinion, ... that sign is a bluff, not enforceable in the public school parking lot while no school sponsored activity is occurring in the parking lot for a non-employee of the school district who has a Texas CHL.I'm not a lawyer